Car and Suicide Bombs Are the Weapons of Oppressed People

           I follow the Syrian revolution pretty closely, through the news, videos, activist websites, etc. The Syrian rebels have used a wide variety of guerrilla attacks on government forces, (and to surprising effectiveness, I might add. Since March of 2011, the government has lost over 7,200 troops while the rebels have only lost around 1,100, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights: http://www.syriahr.com/. But again, I digress). These guerilla attacks range from ambushing convoys, to IED attacks, to hit and run attacks on checkpoints and bases. Another tactic they use fairly often is car bombs and suicide bombings. 

I separated those two out because those two are going to be the focus of this post. Just one example is the most recent high-profile attack as of the time I am writing this: 

          http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/26/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

          What I have a problem with is some of the comments on this article, and on other similar articles as well, that describe Syrian rebel attacks. Here are some of the insults I read often, that go generally along the lines of:

          1. Just like a Muslim, blowing each other up cowardly with car bombs. What dogs.

          2. Those FSA, (Free Syrian Army), terrorists cannot even fight decently, fucking       low-lives.

          3. At least our American boys fight better than this.

          Blah blah blah, etc, you get my point. All of the people who write ignorant comments like this are fucking idiots. There, that’s the summary of my post. But let’s dive deeper as to why they’re so blatantly bigoted.

          People, specifically Americans, are once again confusing terrorism and terrorist attacks with guerrilla warfare and guerrilla attacks. Here are the distinctions I would like to make:

          1. A group or organization can be a guerrilla group but not be a terrorist group. For example, the Filipino rebels, who fought against U.S. occupation from 1899-1902, overwhelmingly attacked U.S. soldiers and military buildings. By definition, they were not a terrorist group, because a terrorist group overwhelmingly attacks civilian targets. Guerrilla attacks on military targets are legal as per international law and conventions.

          2. A group or organization can be a guerrilla group as well as a terrorist group, but not necessarily. For example, Hamas, a Palestinian resistance group, launched attacks against Israeli civilian and military targets during the Second Intifada.

          3. A group, organization, or state can be a terrorist group but not a guerrilla group. For example, the U.S. military launched numerous attacks on civilian targets during their invasion and occupation of Iraq, on purpose, knowing that they were going to kill lots of civilians. The overwhelmingly majority of their causalities were civilians, so by definition, the U.S. military is a terrorist organization. Same thing with the Israeli military. During their 2008-2009 Cast Lead operation, the overwhelmingly majority of Palestinians that they killed were civilians. Israel repeatedly, literally thousands of times, has targeted Palestinian civilians on purpose throughout the many wars. So by definition, the IDF is a terrorist organization.

          Some thugs and gangs operating under the banner of the Free Syrian Army have killed civilians on purpose. This I freely admit because it is sad but true. But this is not coming from the FSA leadership; they are not out to kill Syrian civilians. The vast majority of the FSA’s targets have been military and government targets. This is their goal: to topple the Assad dictatorship. They have the right to attack the government under international law and laws of war, (as well as in all major religions such as Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, etc, and also in American law). This is a legitimate goal; these are legitimate targets. Therefore, the FSA is a guerilla group, not a terrorist group.

          Now that we’ve got that established, let’s move onto the fact that many Americans, Assad supporters, and other 1^st world people look down and criticize the way that guerilla groups, specifically the FSA in this case, fight an insurgency against a conventional state military. It is sickening that these pompous, arrogant, and often racist people insult the Syrian rebels, who are fighting against overwhelming odds. They have limited foreign support, and fight with mostly Kalashnikovs, RPG-s, and IED’s. And they’re up against: A conventional military with tanks, helicopters, and jet fighters. Not only that, but Iran and Hezbollah have freely admitted that they have sent troops to reinforce the Assad military. So that’s 2 countries and one guerrilla group that they’re up against.

          Against all that, and people have the nerve to slur the FSA, thumbing their nose at a people who are fighting the only way that they can. They don’t have foreign countries giving them billions of dollars in military aid, like Israel does. They don’t have the money or technology to have Predator drones or armored APC’s, like the U.S. They are fighting with what they can capture, smuggle or make.

          These insults are part of a broader scheme to delegitimize the people’s right to fight against their government. They want to make it out to look like fighting with car bombs and IED’s is somehow less legitimate, less honorable, and more barbaric than fighting with a tank or an airstrike. This is absolutely ridiculous. An attack on an army base is no more or less legitimate when it is attacked by a Predator drone or a suicide bombing. On the flip side, a terrorist attack on unarmed men and women in a marketplace is no more or less a terrorist attack when they are attacked by a Predator drone or a suicide bombing. The target is what makes an attack legitimate or not, not the manner of the attack.

          By making types of guerrilla attack seem illegitimate to people, these 1^st world bigots and dictator supporters want it to seem like that only their conventional, government military has the right to use deadly force. Therefore, the people, who cannot afford that, they can only afford cheap, simply guerrilla attacks, don’t have the right to use deadly force to protect their rights or protect themselves and their families. If people view violence as being always illegitimate, then they will not use it to defend their rights and families. Which is exactly what they want!!

          These guerrilla attacks work because they are cheap and simple, so it is completely rational and logical for people to use them against conventional militaries. It’s not because they’re bloodthirsty Muslims, no, they’re in a civil war, fighting for their lives, you ignorant fuckers. Yes, I know it’s an epiphany for some bigoted people, but Muslims are humans who have rights too you know, and that includes the right to life! It shows how pathetic we humans are if we actually have to have a human right dedicated just so people are allowed to live and not be slaughtered because of their race or religion.

          Okay, gotta stay on topic. Back to why using car bombs and suicide bombings makes logical and rational sense for the FSA to use against the Assad government. A car bomb is very simply to make, it’s small, it’s cheap, and can be produced rather quickly. And, when used correctly, it can produce devastating results, killing dozens of soldiers and wounding several dozen others. Why wouldn’t you use that??

          Suicide attacks have been used throughout human history, even before we invented explosives. In medieval battles, a lone warrior or two could stay behind and hold off dozens of soldiers, dying in the process, but allowing their comrades to regroup, get away, set up an ambush, etc. In cavalry charges, the first row of cavalry suffered the most causalities, sometimes serving only to slam into a wall of spears so that possibly the 2^nd or 3^rd guy behind them might have a chance of getting through the enemies’ defenses. In World War 2, the Japanese used to slam their planes into American aircraft carriers. Etc etc, these are just 3 examples I thought of, but you get my point.

          Suicide bombings are logical to use for two primary reasons: 1. Guerrilla groups, on the whole, lack sophisticated training for their fighters. It is very hard to get in a situation where they can train 1 of their members well enough, give him enough weaponry, etc, etc, to be able to kill 15 or 20 enemy soldiers by himself in a firefight. That’s hard for any soldier to do, from any country. But, it is very easy to give an untrained man a suicide vest, and tell him to walk up to an enemy patrol, disguised as a civilian, and blow himself up, killing 15 or 20 enemy soldiers.

          2. It’s a simple numbers game. The guerrilla group’s losses versus the government’s losses makes suicide bombings a great tactic. You lose 1 guy, but you kill 15, 20, maybe even 50 or 100 if you’re really lucky. Why wouldn’t you do that?

          In conclusion, just because car bombings and suicide bombings are sometimes used by terrorist groups, does not mean that every time they are used, it is automatically and without question terrorism. It is no more or less a potential terrorist act than a helicopter airstrike or a battleship firing. We should not look down on people for fighting tyranny the only way they possibly can. Believe me, if the FSA had tanks and jet fighters, they’d use them. It’s a lot fucking easier to kill soldiers in a tank than with small arms. But they don’t have them. So they do ambushes, assassinations, etc. The British did the same thing to us during the Revolutionary War. Documents reveal how the British officers viewed us as savages, uncivilized, wild brutes for ambushing them and not fighting face to face in an open field, as was the custom in Europe. They scorned our guerrilla tactics while they walked towards us all in nice, little neat rows. Do we want to act towards other countries the way how the British acted towards us? Uh, fuck no. The British were imperial pricks back then. I for one, do not want to be an imperial prick to anyone.          

          Useful links:

          Syrian American Council:   http://www.sacouncil.com/

          Their FB page:  http://www.facebook.com/sacouncil

          Syrian Observatory for Human Rights:  http://www.syriahr.com/

          Their FB page, (which is in English, the page above is in Arabic): http://www.facebook.com/syriaohr

          Their FB page in Spanish: http://www.facebook.com/siriaosdh

          Islamic Relief’s Syria Page: http://www.irusa.org/emergencies/syrian-humanitarian-relief/

         

          Useful books:

          Guerilla Warfare by Che Guevara

          War in the Shadows: The Guerilla in History by Robert Asprey

           Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism by Robert Pape

          (photo is from usatoday.com) 

"Defense" Contractors are Legitimate Targets of War

         The American government and military use “contractors” in many of their operations, from everything to intelligence gathering to weapons designing to direct combat. I put the word “contractors” in quotations because the American government and military like to call them that. It’s a nice, cute, sophisticated, professional term that doesn’t signify anything bad at all. Contractors can be hired to do anything from yard work to construction, so calling these people contractors doesn’t give away the fact that they are doing functions that had been reserved for either a government or a military for most of human history. They are civilians hired by the American government to do their dirty work: spy on other civilians around the world, “extract information” from them, (a.k.a. torture them, but Americans don’t torture, remember? They simply “extract”), and “enhance mission success”, (a.k.a. kill people).

          In recent times, the question have come up “If two countries are fighting each other, obviously each other militaries are legitimate targets for the other one to attack, but are their contractors, their spies, their weapon manufacturers, who are legally civilians by the way, are they legitimate targets of war?”

          If it’s a hypothetical situation, almost everyone, including Americans, will say “yeah, they’re legitimate targets. They’re helping the war effort. They’re enforcing state oppression, they’re engineering weapons that are killing people,” etc, etc, whatever the case may be. But when it’s Americans that we’re talking about, suddenly a lot of Americans jump on their big superiority complex, and start calling every attack against their spies, their torturers, their kidnappers, their weapon manufacturers, even their own soldiers, a terrorist attack. Americans, (and their Western allies), are just so fucking special that they honestly believe that ordinary rules and logic doesn’t apply to them.

          Let me give you scenarios in which this arrogance is displayed:

·         American soldiers kill a Taliban spy. Americans view that as a legitimate kill. After all, we’re at war. But as soon as the Taliban kill an American spy, they go crying, calling it a terrorist attack and how all Muslims are backward, barbaric terrorists.

·         American soldiers kill a Taliban soldier that was torturing an American for information. Americans view that as a legitimate kill. But as soon as the Taliban stage a night raid on an American base, and kill an American who was a torturer, they go crying, calling it a terrorist attack and how all Muslims are backward, barbaric terrorists.

·         American soldiers kill a Taliban insurgent in a combat operation, an ambush, whatever the case may be. Americans rightly view that as a legitimate kill. That is what war is supposed to be: soldiers killing soldiers, (not soldiers killing civilians, that’s fucking terrorism). But when a Taliban soldier kills an American soldier in a covert sneak attack, or as some people like to call it “blue on green” attacks, Americans go crying, calling it a terrorist attack and how all Muslims are backward, barbaric terrorists.

          You can’t agree with a statement when it doesn’t involve your countrymen, and then suddenly not agree with the exact same statement when it does involve your countrymen. Either you view that contractors are legitimate targets of war, or not. That’s it. What country they are from should not influence your decision at all, because if you do that, you create an alternative reality where Americans can do anything and do nothing wrong, and their enemies aren’t allowed to do the exact same things and everything they do is wrong.

          Furthermore, you can’t dish out pain and death, and then cry foul when someone fights back. You cannot be a contractor who is furthering the foreign occupation of Afghanistan, and then cry “terrorist attack!” when the Taliban attack you. It doesn’t work that way. If you’re designing a Predator drone to give to the Israelis to attack unarmed men, women and children in schools and mosques, you can’t say “Oh, those Palestinians just hate Americans because of who we are” when Palestinians and other peoples protest the sale of drones to Israel. It doesn’t work that way.

          In conclusion, even though contractors are still legally civilians, they perform many functions that make them legitimate targets of war. What implications does it have for us? Well, for people like in the New York City area, or Washington Metro area, or near Los Angeles, etc, there are a lot of contractor buildings near your homes, your businesses, your schools, etc. That means there are legitimate targets of war right next to where you live, go shopping, etc. Are you okay with that? Do you feel safe? After all, if someone wanted to attack the U.S. legitimately, that means there could possibly be attacks right next to you. Are you okay with the fact that the arrogant, selfish U.S. foreign policy is putting you and your family at risk? After all, if the defense contractors acted legitimately and in accordance with international law and the laws of war, they would be doing nothing wrong, so there would be no reason for anyone to attack them. Are you okay with your neighbors going to work to design weapons to give to dictators, or designing new torture methods to skirt around international laws, and then coming home and acting like a normal person around you and your family? After all, they’re legitimate targets of war. They’re pretty damn close to you. Do you feel safe?    

 (picture is of private security contractors in Afghanistan, and is from foreignpolicyblogs.com).                                             

Egyptians Want Dictator Supporters Out of Their Country

Egyptian protesters stormed the U.S. embassy in Cairo, and ripped down the American flag that was hanging there.

          http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/11/world/meast/egpyt-us-embassy-protests/index.html

 

          The Egyptians had a clear message: they don’t want American government personnel operating in their country anymore. The American media, and many other Americans for that matter, will spin this story, saying any number of things:

          1. All Muslims hate Americans, not because of the crimes we do, (America doesn’t do anything wrong, remember?), but because of who we are, for us just simply existing.

          2. Muslims hate America because they’re jealous of the wealth and freedoms that we have.

          3. Muslims are violent people so they just stormed the embassy just because an anti-Islamic video that may/may not have been showing at the embassy.  

         

          Etc etc the list goes on, but I digress. My point of this post is that the Egyptians had good reason to storm the embassy. Islam, Christianity, and American values would all support these protests and what they did. (This is a totally different story than the attack on the American embassy in Benghazi, Libya. I condemn that attack, as Islam does not support an attack based on the circumstances in Libya. But again, I digress). For a minute, forget the crap that the American media constantly spews out about Islam, Muslims and the Middle East. Forget all the xenophobic bigoted bullshit that many Americans say every day. Let’s look at this story with logic and context (*gasp* I know, what a dangerous innovation that is!).  

          American support for past Egyptian dictators is well known and well documented. Americans seem to act like this isn’t such a big deal, or that it never happened in the first place, and act all surprised when Egyptians protest against the U.S. government. American military support, (not counting any other type of support), for Hosni Mubarak’s repressive and torturous dictatorship was $1.3 billion a year alone, (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2011/0127/Joe-Biden-says-Egypt-s-Mubarak-no-dictator-he-shouldn-t-step-down). The protesters in last year’s revolution were burning with anger when they saw that the rubber bullets and tear gas canisters being shot at them had “Made in the U.S.A.” on them. Their blood boiled when they saw the police’s vehicles and APCs were given to Mubarak’s thugs by the U.S.

          Not only did the U.S. finance Mubarak’s dictatorship, but we knew exactly what the fuck he had been doing for decades, and still financed it anyway. We can’t play the “we didn’t know” excuse for this one. Jane Myer, in her book The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How The War on Terror Turned into a War on American Ideals, says that the U.S. State Department reported that: “detainees were "stripped and blindfolded; suspended from a ceiling or doorframe with feet just touching the floor; beaten with fists, whips, metal rods, or other objects; subjected to electrical shocks; and doused with cold water [and] sexually assaulted," (p.112).

          On January 15, 2009, the U.S. Ambassador in Egypt wrote the following in a secret cable published by WikiLeaks:

"Police brutality in Egypt against common criminals is routine and pervasive. Contacts describe the police using force to extract confessions from criminals as a daily event, resulting from poor training and understaffing. Brutality against Islamist detainees has reportedly decreased overall, but security forces still resort to torturing Muslim Brotherhood activists who are deemed to pose a political threat. Over the past five years, the government has stopped denying that torture exists, and since late 2007 courts have sentenced approximately 15 police officers to prison terms for torture and killings...NGO contacts estimate there are literally hundreds of torture incidents every day in Cairo police stations alone." ("US embassy cables: Police brutality in Egypt," Guardian/UK, January 28, 2011.)  

          And we gave these guys weapons, food, vehicles, and surveillance equipment! Again, as I’ve asked in my past posts, what does that make us? But wait! It gets even better. Not only have we knowingly and voluntarily financed torture, kidnappings, rapes, oppression and denial of people’s basic human rights in Egypt, we’ve actually facilitated it! That’s right, according to the ACLU, a former CIA officer said "If you want a serious interrogation, you send a prisoner to Jordan. If you want them to be tortured, you send them to Syria. If you want someone to disappear—never to see them again—you send them to Egypt." ("Fact Sheet: Extraordinary Rendition," ACLU, December 6, 2005).”

          So now do you see why Egyptians are so pissed off at the U.S.? It’s not because they’re ignorant and violent, it’s not because they’re jealous of our “intelligence and power”, it’s not because Islam is commanding them to attack non-Muslims, no, it’s because WE FINANCED AND SUPPORTED kidnappings, torture, sexual assaults, murders, and assassinations in Egypt! And since the American embassy is the only piece of American territory in Egypt, that would make it the logical place to start. Since foreign aid to Egypt goes through the embassy and embassy diplomats are the ones that facilitate the money to Mubarak’s thugs, again, that would make it the logical place to attack.

          Imagine if it was the other way around, if you still can’t understand the legitimacy of this anger. Imagine if Egypt gave billions of dollars to an American politician or general that had his own army, and he took control of this country and made it a dictatorship. And, using this money that he got from Egypt, he took away our rights guaranteed by the Constitution. He used this money to pay thugs to kidnap American citizens that were brave enough to become politically involved against the dictatorship. These thugs would torture American citizens, sometimes killing them, and they would never be heard from again. American women who were kidnapped would be sexually assaulted and raped.

          Wouldn’t you be just a tad pissed off at Egypt for causing so much pain, destruction and agony against the American people? Wouldn’t you want the Egyptian embassy to get the fuck off of American territory? Yeah, you would be pissed off! Now you see my point.

          Some people would counter this, saying “This attack is not about any U.S. support for Mubarak, this about some dumb anti-Islamic film that was possibly being shown in the U.S. embassy.” I would answer “The film was simply the fuse that lit the powder keg. That was the thing that sent the Egyptians into the streets, but they do not have short term memory loss. They have not forgotten what the U.S. had been doing to them for decades. Was World War 1 all about the assassination of Arch-Duke Ferdinand? Of course not, but his assassination sparked the war. You cannot look at events without background history and context.”

          Lastly, some people will say “Oh well, Mubarak fell in 2011, so why are the Egyptians attacking us just now?” I would answer “Just because a crime happened last year, doesn’t mean it should count anymore? No, that’s not logical. That’s not how we think towards any other crime, so why should we think that way towards this one? Who cares when it happened, the fact is that we did these crimes towards the Egyptian people, and now, they are fighting back. They have every right to fight against torturers, rapists, and killers. Christianity supports this. Communism supports this. Islam supports this, etc. We have these rights as Americans, (right to attack people who are injuring/killing/raping other people), so American values supports fighting against criminals as well.”     

(Photo is from CNN. Some sources and quotes are from revcom/us).